Debtor Loses Bid to Make Receiver Pay for Alleged Car Damage

A dispute over a broken car gearbox, stemming from a vehicle seized during debt enforcement proceedings, has been ruled on by a bailiff registrar in Hadera. The debtor's Hyundai was impounded in early July 2026 as part of a lien enforcement process. Following a court-approved settlement, the car was returned to the debtor, but he claims it sustained severe gearbox damage while in the receiver's custody.

The debtor alleges that immediately after retrieving the car from the impound lot, he discovered the gearbox malfunctioned, preventing him from engaging even gears or reverse. An diagnostic check reportedly indicated drive system error codes, and a Hyundai dealership estimated the repair cost at approximately 49,771 shekels. The debtor attributed the damage to negligent towing by the company hired by the receiver.

He petitioned the registrar to order the receiver to disclose the towing company's details and insurance policy, or alternatively, to hold the receiver personally liable for the damages or deduct the cost from his outstanding debt. The debtor also sought personal expenses against the receiver and the bank, citing their alleged disregard for his inquiries and emphasizing the hardship caused by the car's inoperability due to his child with special needs requiring transportation.

The receiver countered that the claims lacked factual and legal basis, arguing the debtor failed to provide supporting affidavits and had already received relevant information, including the seizure report and towing insurance policy. She asserted that the debtor's requests were repetitive and filed despite a clause in the settlement agreement where he waived all claims against the creditor and receiver.

Registrar Malka Ovidah Azam dismissed the debtor's request to hold the receiver personally liable. She stated that holding a receiver personally liable requires proof of a separate breach of duty or personal negligence, which the debtor had not demonstrated. The registrar clarified that the question of who is responsible for the gearbox failure, and whether it resulted from the towing or pre-existed, is a separate factual and legal dispute that must be pursued against the towing company directly, not within the debt enforcement case.

While the registrar noted the repair estimate was insufficient to prove the damage or establish a causal link to the towing, she did not definitively rule out that damage occurred or determine responsibility. The decision left the debtor with the option to pursue a separate legal action against the towing company. The registrar also noted that the towing company's details had already been provided, rendering that part of the request moot. The debtor's request was fully denied, with no order for compensation, debt offset, or personal expenses against the receiver. The registrar opted not to charge the debtor legal costs 'as a matter of grace' but warned that further frivolous requests would result in punitive costs.